battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:New MOS
20:03, August 26, 2011 (UTC) ---- Seems pretty good; everything looks like its covered. The only thing I would change is in the section of articles we should have is the part about mods. instead of major mods, it should be official mods. That way, we wont have non-EA made mods on the site since they don't need to be covered - unless we'd rather have stuff about that then. 02:07, August 27, 2011 (UTC) : Correction made - 13:29, August 27, 2011 (UTC) ---- Well, if nobody else has any comments, can I suggest voting on adopting it? - 15:03, August 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - as proposer - 15:03, August 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment/Support' - I agree that we should update the MoS, but it still needs some work. Maybe for the Images & Videos section : "Each article should only have 1 In Real Life Image, and the IRL image should be in the opening section of a article. The IRL image preferably should be either 250px or 300px. As for infobox images, they should be around 250px." Also, for the Categories section: " Categories should be aranged in the order : "Article Type (Etc. Vehicle/Weapon/Specialization), 1st game that it appears in (Etc. Vehicles of Battlefield 1942/Weapons of Battlefield 1942), 2nd game that it appears in, 3rd game that it appears in and so on, Specific Article Type (Etc. Helicopter/Fixed-Wing Aircraft/Main Battle Tank), Sub-category of Article Type (Etc. Attack/Transport Helicopter)" But other than that, I think it's good. ::The images suggestion is good, I'll change that. Is the order of the categories really that important? - 16:05, August 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Suppport' - Per Proposal and Comment, it is a nice update to the Manual of Style and seems to cover out more onto how's the best way of formatting the articles. This is Pedro9basket, go ahead... '' 08:48, August 30, 2011 (UTC) *'Support/Comment''' - Per proposition. But I agree with DEath's addition. It's more for cleanliness and appearance when looking at the categories on the bottoms of articles than anything. And it's how we've been doing it so far. 14:03, August 31, 2011 (UTC) :: OK, done - 15:05, August 31, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' - Once It's implemented I'll start changing vehicle names. Looks good overall (apart from some minor spelling errors). One thing I'd like to bring up, though, is that the lead section section (lol) is a bit vague. Technically, just about anything could go with it the way it is currently written. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 15:16, August 31, 2011 (UTC) ::I've been through and sorted all the typos I can find, so thanks for pointing them out. Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the lead section section...? - 15:34, August 31, 2011 (UTC) :::The way I've been doing it is introduce the vehicle's in-game/IRL name and related names, tell where its from and who makes it, give some info into its creation, detail its capable armaments relevant to the series, and tell when and where it has served, limiting myself to 2 paragraphs maximum (sometimes mixing up the order to keep it interesting except for the name and maker). If people want to know more, they can google it or look it up on Wikipedia, where an external link should be provided at the bottom, which I usually forget to add. :::And yes, Yuri, I did forget to fix the template, lol. :P 16:14, August 31, 2011 (UTC) ::::Right, well I've had a go at incorporating some of that - 16:55, August 31, 2011 (UTC) Voting over. Proposal passed - 21:20, September 5, 2011 (UTC) }}